|nJfyrl^Jk^^^ 


M*^ 


77?^.  777 .MSy  ^ 


JuCtiu^ 


i  reasual  room 


COL.  GEORGE  WASHINGTON  FLOWERS 
MEMORIAL  COLLECTION 


DUKF  tlNIVERSI-n'  MURARY 
DURHAM.  N.  C. 


MPSENTHD  BY 

W.  W.  FLOWERS 


/ 


E  E  M  A  R  K  S 


ON 


MR.  MOTLEY'S  LETTER 


LONDON   TIMES 


WAR     IN     AMERICA 


CHARLESTON : 

STEAM-POWKR      PRBBIIS      OP      E  T  A  I*  S      k      COOBWtLL, 

Nofl.  3  Broad  and  lors  Rnat  Bay  Street*. 

1861. 


-7=,..— if,  ''^^^ 


%Q^   S*-f\d^ 


REVIEW   OF   MOTLEY'S   LETTER. 


Mr.  Motley,  the  liistorian,  addressed  a  letter,  a  few  weeks 
since,  to  the  London  Times,  "  on  the  causes  of  the  Ameri- 
can civil  war."  The  letter  was  a  great  success.  It  made 
the  writer  an  ambassador.  He  is  now  minister  for  the 
United  States  at  the  Court  of  Vienna.  The  pay  followed 
closely  on  the  service  ;  so  closely  that  there  must  have  been 
a  previous  understanding,  a  contract  of  purchase  and  sale, 
between  the  clever  recruit  and  the  despotism  in  Washing- 
ton. No  venal  pen  before  has  ever  been  so  speedily  and 
amply  rewarded.  Whether  the  letter  adds  anything  to  the 
author's  honors  as  a  writer  or  a  man,  is  much  more  doubt- 
ful. 

Mr.  Motley  begins  with  a  gentle  appeal  ad  misericordiam . 
The  people  of  England,  he  complains,  are  in  too  great 
haste  to  believe  in  the  downfall  of  the  "Great  Republic." 
They  liave  been  too  willing  /o  accept  the  fact.  He  seeks 
comfort  in  the  "  Tristia"  of  Ovid,  and  quotes,  in  a  tone  of 
tender  upbraiding,  "the  plaintive  language  of  the  poet :" 

"Donnec  eris  fclix,  multos  numerabis  amicos, 
Tempora  cum  fuercnt  nubila,  nullus  orit." 

The  lines,  freely  translated,  may  mean  :  The  Northern 
iStates  have  invaded  the  South  with  firo  and  sword,  and 
England,  alas  I  gives  the  assailants  neither  men,  nioin  y. 
nor  sympathy. 

Can  the  people  of  England  do  otherwise  than  accept 
what  everybody  has  accepted  ?  Can  they  fail  to  observe  a 
fact  that  is  obvious  as  the  sun  at  noonday,  that  takes  the 
shape  of  a  confederacy  embracing  eleven  States,  iu  a  coun- 

P4209; 


Jf^Z/a. 


try  almost  as  large  as  Europi',  with  President  and  Congress 
and  court,'*  and  treasury  nnd  armii's  and  victories  —  a  fact 
that  all  perceive  j)lainly  except  the  men  who  have  brought 
it  about,  and  who,  for  that  reason  alone,  refuse  to  see  it  ? 
Mr.  Motley  says  the  end  is  uncertain  :  "the  ordeal  of  bat- 
tle is  hardly  eoninienccd,  and  the  result  is  unknown." 
But  whatever  be  the  result,  the  "■Great  licpuhlir"  exists  no 
longer.  It  can  never  be  reconstructed.  It  would  be  as 
rational  to  believe  that  France  and  England  may  return  to 
the  union  of  five  hundred  years  ago,  as  that  the  jicople  of 
the  Nortli  and  South  can  live  again  under  one  Govern- 
ment. Every  blow  struck  increases  the  mutual  hatred. 
The  season  even  for  iricndly  commercial  treaties  is  past 
already,  lielations,  political  or  social,  with  the  Northern 
States,  are  now  odious  to  Southern  men.  They  will  become 
more  so  as  the  war  continues.  This  is  what  Mr.  Motley 
calls  the  '*</e  facto"  side  of  the  question.  It  is  not  a 
pleasant  ju'o.'^pect  for  liis  employers  ;  but  it  is  one  of  their 
own  making,  and  they  must  make  the  best  of  it. 

Mr.  Motley  proceeds  to  answer  a  question  ]»ut  to  him  by 
Eurojiean  curit)sity  and  surpi'ise.  A\'liy.  iluy  ask,  have 
the  United  States  iihuiged  into  this  "  wicked  war  ?"  lie 
reiterates  the  jilausible  but  lalsc  pretences  by  whieh  Lin- 
coln and  Seward  succeeded  in  i-xeiting  the  Xorthern  })eo]ile 
to  arms.  These  })retences  were  a  reported  Ihreat  made 
somewhere,  by  somebody,  that  the  Confederates  would 
attack  Washington  ;  tlie  necessity  of  defending  the  coun- 
try's capital  ;  the  duty  to  protect  the  honor  oi"  the  mitional 
flag.  But  what  was  jdausible  in  Aj>ril,  is  i)lausib1e  no 
longer.  Time  has  stripped  the  falsehood  of  its  mask.  The 
Lincoln  troops  have  been  marched  into  Vii-ginia.  They 
have  committed  every  j)ossible  outrage  against  dceency, 
humanity,  and  the  laws  of  civilized  warl'arc.  They  have 
burned  lionses,  wasted  ticMs,  jnurdered  men,  abused 
women,  kept  })ris<)ners  of  war  in  chains,  passed  laws  to 
contiseate  proj)erty,  and  prochiimed  a  war  of  subjugation 
against  the  Southern  States.  The  Confederates  have  made 
no  attack  on  any  part  of  the  United  States.     They  have 


eought  peace  repeatedly,  by  every  effort  in  their  power. 
They  are  waging  a  defensive  war  only  ibr  the  protection  of 
their  homes  and  their  firesides,  most  wantonly  and  wick- 
edh'  assailed. 

Mr.  Motley  proceeds  to  discuss  the  question  <le  jure,  the 
question  of  right.  The  Southern  States,  he  thinks,  have 
no  right  to  leave  the  Union.  lie  arraigns  them  before  the 
tribunal  of  the  civilized  world  and  of  future  ages,  on  a 
charge  of  rebellion  against  legitimate  authority.  The  South 
accepts  the  appeal.  It  is  not  a  rebellion.  The  very  title  of 
Mr.  Motlej-'s  letter  includes  a  misnomer.  The  conflict  is 
not  properly  a  "civil  war."  It  is  a  war  Avagcd  by  one 
nation  on  another  nation;  by  the  Northern  States  on  the 
Southern  States.  It  is  made  by  the  assailants  in  defiance 
and  contempt  of  all  the  received  maxims  of  American  lib- 
erty. It  is  instigated  b}'  a  desire  to  retain  bounties,  monop- 
olies, commercial  agencies,  commissions,  freights,  and  the 
exclusive  control  of  the  Southern  carrying  trade.  This  is 
the  true  nature  of  the  war,  and  these  are  its  purposes.  It 
is  a  war  of  wrong,  carried  on  with  infamous  atrocities,  for 
sinister  and  selfish  ends.  For  these  things,  the  Southern 
people  in  turn  arraign  the  North  as  criminals  before  the 
civilized  world. 

Mr.  Motley  rests  his  whole  case  on  the  assumption  that 
the  Union  is  a  commonwealth  ;  the  Government  supreme; 
the  States  corporations,  provinces,  counties,  and  nothing 
more.  lie  founds  his  assumption  on  statements  of  pre- 
tended historical  facts.  His  statements  of  facts  are  false  ; 
his  assumption  therefore  has  no  basis  to  support  it;  his 
conclusions  consequently  stand  on  nothing. 

Mr.  Motley  assumes  that  the  United  States  is  "not  a 
Confederacy,  not  a  compact  of  States."  He  believes  with 
his  patron,  Mr.  Lincoln,  that  the  Union  made  the  States, 
not  the  States  the  Union.  The  Constitution,  he  declares, 
was  '■'■not  (Irnum  vp  hif  the  JStates/'  "  It  ivas  not  ratified  by  the 
States.'"  The  States  never  acceded  to  it,  and  possess  no  power 
to  secede  from  it.  It  was  established  over  the  States  by  a  power 
superior  to  the  States — by  ttte  people  of  the  whole  land  acting  in 


.-<• 


P42097 


6 

their  o(jgregaie  capacihf.  All  parties,  he  declares,  the  friends 
and  the  foes  of  the  Constitution,  believed  in  1788  that  tlje 
Government  was  a  consolidatid  (/ocernment,  and  )>ot  a  Confede- 
racy. "  ^V^lethe^  it  were  an  advantageous  or  a  noxious 
ehani^e,  all  agreed  that  the  thinu;  had  been  done."  There  is 
not  a  shadow  of  trutli  in  any  one  of  his  assertions.  It  is 
impossible  that  Mr.  Motley  should  not  know  the  history  of 
his  own  country .  lie  has  therefore  made  false  statements 
of  pretended  facts,  deliberately,  to  accomitlish  a  political  or 
selfish  purpose. 

Mr.  Motley  says  ihe^  Constitution  was  not  draini  up  by  the 
States.  In  May,  1787,  the  general  Convention  of  States 
met  in  I'hiladelphia.  It  was  called  a  Convention  of  tlie 
States.  They  were  engaged  until  September  in  drawing  up 
a  Constitution.  In  every  stage  of  their  progress,  on  every 
article  adoi)ted,  the  vote  was  by  States.  The  Constitution 
was  signed  wlien  completed  by  tlu'  members,  not  individ- 
ually, but  as  representatives  of  States. 

Mr.  Motley  says,  the  Constitution  was  not  ratijicd  by 
States,  but  was  imposed  on  them  by  the  people  of  the  whole 
land  in  their  aggregate  capacity.  The  Constitution  was  re- 
ferred to  the  States  severally  in  their  State  Conventions. 
These  Conventions  were  conventions  "of  the  people  of 
the  State  of  New  York,"  "of  the  people  of  the  State  of 
Connecticut,"  "of  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth  of 
Massachusetts,"  so  styled  in  their  proceedings  of  ratilica- 
tion,  each  acting  indei)endently  of  all  others,  and  uncon- 
trolled by  their  decisions.  The  Constitution  became  the 
Government  of  every  State  that  ratified  it,  and  of  no 
other.  It  succeeded  in  Virginia  and  New  York  after  a 
desperate  struggle  only.  Two  States  refused  or  neglected 
to  adopt  it,  and  were  out  of  the  Union  for  a  year  after  the 
inau<;uration  of  the  Government.  If  three  more  States 
had  rejected  the  Constitution,  it  could  not  have  been  estab- 
lished.    P]ight  States  were  not  enough. 

The  Constitution,  JSIr.  Motley  says,  is  not  a  compact. 
In  the  Conventions  of  Massachusetts  and  New  Hamp- 
shire, it   is  declared   to   })e  an  explicit  and  solemn  compact 


made  for  the  United  States  by  the  delegates  of  the  United 
States,  and  it  is  ratified  as  such  in  the  name  and  in  behalf 
of  the  people  of  the  Commonwealth  of  Massachusetts  and 
of  the  people  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Motley  asserts  that  all  parties,  friends  and  foes,  be- 
lieved, in  1788,  that  the  Government  was  a  consolidation 
and  not  a  confederacy.     It  would  be  as  near  the  truth  to 
say  all  parties  agreed  that  the  Government  was  a  monarchy. 
It  is  only  necessary  to  look  into  the  records  of  the  State 
Conventions  to  see  the  falsehood  of  Mr.  Motley's  assertion. 
In  the  Virginia  Convention,  the  debate  was  continued  for 
a  month.     Among  the  foes  arrayed  against  the  new  Con- 
stitution, Patrick  Henry  was  perhaps  the  most  vehement 
and  able.     He  made  numerous  speeches  in  the  Virginia 
Convention  against  the  proposed  Government.    He  augured 
from  it   a  hundred   dangers  of  every  sort.     Among  other 
objections,  he  charged  it  with  being  a  consolidated  Govern- 
ment.    Mr.  Motley  quotes  from  one  of  Henry's  speeches. 
But  not  a  word  is  given  by  Mr.  Motley  of  the  replies.     Did 
the  friends  of  the  Constitution  agree  with  its  foes  as  to  this 
particular  feature  of  the  new  Government,  as  Mr.  ISIotley 
says  they  did  ?     Did  they  admit  the  consolidation  and  de- 
fend it  ?     Nothing  like  it!     The  friends  repelled  the  impu- 
tation as  a  false  and  unfiiir  charge  of  prejudiced  enemies. 
Mr.  Lee  said:  "Sir,  he  (Mr.  Henry)  tells  us,  this  is  a  con- 
solidated Government,  and  most  feelingly  does  he  dwell  on 
the  imaginary  dangers  of  this  pretended  eonsolidation.     If  this 
were  a  consolidation,  ought  it  not  to  be  ratified  by  a  major- 
ity of  the  peoi)le  as  individuals,  and  not  as  States?     Sup- 
pose Virginia,  Connecticut,  Massachusetts  and  Pennsylvania 
had    ratified  the  Constitution,   these  four  States,   being  a 
majority  of  the  people  of  America,  by  their  adoption  of  the 
Constitution,  would  have  made  it  binding  on  all  the  States. 
But  it  is  binding  on  those  States  only  that  may  adoi)t  it. 
If  the  honorable  gentleman  will  attend  to  this,  we   shall 
hear  no  more  of  consolidation." 

The  charge  of  consolidation  rested  on  a  phrase  in  the 
preamble  of  the   Constitution,   on    the  words,   "We,   the 


8 

people."  of  the  United  States.  Mr.  Madison,  the  most 
prominent  advocate  of  the  Constitution,  replies  to  Mr. 
Henry:  "You  consider  the  phrase  'We,  the  people,' 
as  indicating  consolidation.  But  who  are  the  parties  ? 
The  people ;  hut  not  the  people  as  composing  one  great 
hody.  It  is  the  people  as  composing  thirdrn  sovereignties." 
In  the  Convention  of  Pennsylvania,  Mr.  Wilson,  one  of 
the  ablest  men  of  his  day,  says :  "  The  United  States  may 
adopt  one  of  four  systems.  They  may  become  consolidated  into 
one  Government.  They  may  reject  any  plan  of  Union.  They 
may  form  two  or  more  Omfedcracies.  They  may  unite  in  a 
Federal  Republic."  He  rejects  the  first,  a  consolidated 
Government,  as  invoicing  unqualified  and  unremitted  despot- 
ism, lie  states  objections  to  the  second  and  third,  and 
ho  advocates  the  fourth,  the  Federal  Republic,  as  the 
most  eligible  system  for  the  American  States.  In  Massa- 
chusetts, Fisher  Ames,  a  distinguished  statesman,  while 
insisting  on  the  importimce  of  the  Senate  as  a  part  of  the 
federal  system,  maintains  that  the  Senators  will  be  in  the 
quality  of  ambassadors  of  the  States.  "  They  irill  be  a  safe- 
guard" he  says,  ^'against  consolidation,  ichivh  woidd  subvert  the 
Constitution.  Too  much  provision  cannot  be  made  against  a 
coiisolidation.  The  State  Governments  represad  the  wishes  and 
feelings  of  the  people.  They  are  the  safeguards  and  ornament  of 
the  Constitution.  They  will  protract  the  period  of  our  liberties. 
They  will  be  the  natural  (wengcrs  of  violated  rights." 

We  solicit  the  reader's  special  attention  to  the  language 
of  Mr.  Ames.  It  is  almost  prophetic  in  reference  to  the 
dangers  to  be  aj)prelionded  from  consolidation  and  the 
solemn  duties  which  the  State  Cjovernments  would  perform 
in  defending  the  "  violated  riglits"  of  the  people.  Every 
one  knows  the  character  and  position  of  Alexander  Ham- 
ilton. He  was  the  advocate  of  a  strong  Ciovernment.  He 
wished  for  one  stronger  than  the  Government  adopted. 
But  he  took  the  Constitution  frankly  as  the  best  that  could 
be  got.  In  the  New  York  Convention  he  calls  the  Govern- 
ment a  confederacy  of  States.  He  declares  that  the  State 
Governments  will  always  command  a  controlling  influence 


witli  the  people  ;  that  "  The  States  can  never  lose  their 
powers  till  the  whole  people  of  America  are  robbed  of  their 
liberties.  They  must  go  together;  the}-  must  support  each 
other  or  meet  one  common  fate."  Tie  controverts,  as  "a 
curious  sophistry,"  the  opinion  that  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment is  supreme,  and  the  States  subordinate.  "  The  laws 
of  the  United  States  are  supreme  as  to  all  their  proper  con- 
stitutional objects.  The  laws  of  the  States  are  supreme  in  the 
same  u-ay."  Each  is  supreme  in  its  sphere.  We  would 
ask  Mr.  Motley  whether  the  great  statesman  and  orator  of 
NcAv  York  considered  the  Constitution  as  a  consolidated 
Government,  the  United  States  a  commonwealth,  and  the 
States  departments  or  counties  ? 

Notwithstanding  all  the  assurances  and  reasonings  of 
such  men  as  Hamilton,  Ames,  Madison,  Wilson  and  Lee, 
that  the  Government  was  not  consolidated,  that  it  was  a 
confederacy  of  States,  the  foes  of  the  Constitution  were  dis- 
satisfied and  suspicious.  To  remove  suspicions  and  satisfy 
all  doubts,  amendments  were  proposed  for  additional  secu- 
rity, and  every  effort  was  made  by  the  friends  of  the  Con- 
stitution to  allay  what  they  continued  to  believe  groundless 
and  unreasonable  alarm.  Of  these  amendments,  the  most 
important  declares  that  "all  powers  not  delegated  to  the 
United  States  by  the  Constitution  nor  prohibited  by  it  to 
the  States  are  reserved  to  the  States  respectively  or  to  the 
people."  The  foes  of  the  Constitution  were  appeased.  The 
Government  was  adopted  and  inaugurated  under  these  cir- 
cumstances. And  yet,  Mr.  Motley,  in  the  face  of  all  this 
evidence,  assures  his  English  readers  that  all  parties, 
friends  and  foes,  agreed,  in  1788,  in  believing  the  United 
States  to  be  a  commonwealth  with  supreme  power,  and 
the  States  nothing  more,  substantially,  than  counties  are 
in  England, 

Let  us  see  how  Mr.  Motley's  assertions  agree  with  the 
records  to  wliich  we  have  referred.  Mr,  Motley  says  the 
Union  is  not  a  confederacy,  Hamilton  declares  that  the 
Government  is  a  confederacy  of  States.  Mr.  Wilson  de- 
scribes it  as  a  Confederate  Republic.     Mr.  Motley  says  it  is 


10 

not  a  compact :  tliorc  are  no  parties;  who  ever  lioard  of 
a  ccmipact,  he  asks,  made  hy  a  single  person  with  himself? 
Mr.  Madison  avers  that,  not  a  single  person,  hut  thirteen 
sovereignties  were  the  i)arties;  that  the  Consfitiidon  iroj^  not 
nuifk  or  catablislicd  b>i  the  people  as  one  bodi/,  but  bt/  the  people 
of  the  States  several!)/.  Massachusetts  and  New  Ilannishire 
call  the  Constitution  an  crplirit  and  solemn  compact.  Mr. 
Motley  insists  that  the  Government  is  a  consolidated  com- 
monwealth. Mr.  Ames  warns  the  people  to  guard  against 
consolidation;  it  would  inevitably  subvert  the  Constitution.  Mr. 
Motley  says  the  States  bear  the  same  relation  substantially 
to  the  United  States  as  a  county  to  England  or  a  depart- 
ment to  France.  Mi-.  Hamilton  says  the  States  are  su- 
]>reme  within  their  reserved  rights,  and  Mr.  Ames  calls 
the  State  (iovernments  the  safeguards  of  the  Constitution, 
the  shelters  from  abused  power,  and  the  avengers  of 
violated  rights.  Instead  of  asserting,  as  Mr.  ^fotley  asserts, 
that  all  parties,  in  1788,  agreed  in  the  opinion  he  has  im- 
puted to  them,  it  would  be  vastly  nearer  the  truth  to 
declare  that  it  was  admitted  by  universal  con.sent,  in  1788, 
that  the  Constitution  ought  not  to  be,  was  not,  and  should 
not  be  a  consolidated  government. 

.Mr.  Motley  covers  up  his  sophistry  under  an  ambiguous 
use  of  the  word  "States."  AVhen  he  says  the  Constitution 
was  not  ratified  by  the  States,  he  means  the  Slate  Gorern- 
ments — the  State  Goveinnnenis  did  not  ratify  tin'  constitution, 
the  Slate  Governments  (\\i\  not  accede  to  the  Union,  and  there- 
fore cannot  secede  from  it.  All  very  ti-ue.  Hut  the  State 
Governments  are  not  the  States.  Tliey  ai-e  the  creatures  of 
the  States.  They  may  act  as  agents  for  their  creators. 
They  did  so  act  in  1775.  The  Confederation  of  that  time 
was  a  confederacy  of  State  Governments  acting  for  the 
States.  The  Constitution  of  1787  was  a  confederacy  of 
States  acting  directly  for  themselves.  The  State  Govern- 
ments did  not  ratify  the  Constitution,  nor  accede  to  it,  but 
the  States  did.  The  State  Governments  cannot  secede  Irom 
the  Union,  but  the  States  may.  The  people  of  the  several 
States  are  the  States. 


11 

The  parties  formed  during  the  ratification  of  the  Consti- 
tution continued  after  the  inauguration  of  the  Government. 
Its  first  opponents  were  watchful  over  its  operations.  The 
Federal  party  wishing  to  give  strength  to  the  Government 
as  far  as  was  consistent  with  its  nature,  desired  to  mould 
the  action  of  the  Government  as  nearly  as  possible  in  con- 
formity with  their  peculiar  views.  Washington  strove  to 
neutrali?:e  liis  administration.  lie  made  Jefferson,  who 
was  the  leader  of  one  party,  Secretar}^  of  State,  and  placed 
Hamilton,  the  chief  of  the  other,  at  the  head  of  the  Treas- 
ury. The  bitter  personal  disputes  of  the  two  Secretaries 
never  ceased.  They  harassed  the  President  beyond  meas- 
ure. He  remonstrated,  but  in  vain.  Party  hatred  was  so 
intense  as  to  suspend  all  social  intercourse  between  the 
members  of  the  opposing  factions.  The  Federal  party 
when  in  power  under  Adams  passed  laws  which  were  held 
by  their  opponents  to  be  invasions  of  personal  liberty  and 
liberty  of  the  press.  Wheii  the  Jefferson  party  came  into 
power,  in  1801,  the  obnoxious  laws  were  repealed,  and  the 
fines  imposed  under  them  returned  to  the  sufferers.  In  the 
meanwhile,  appeals  were  threatened  to  the  power  of  the 
States  for  protection  against  the  usurped  powers  of  the  Fed- 
eral Government.  Again,  during  the  war  of  1812,  the  Xew 
England  States  assembled  in  Convention  to  defend  their 
liberties  and  interests  from  what  they  deemed  the  oppres- 
sive measures  of  the  general  Government.  What  proceed- 
ing or  i)lan  was  in  preparation  is  unknown  and  is  unim- 
portant. It  was  an  appeal  of  some  kind  to  the  State 
powers  from  those  of  the  Government  at  Washington.  All 
parties  in  turn  were  read}'  to  look  to  the  States  as  the  safe- 
guards of  their  liberties.  And  yet,  in  defiance  of  these 
facts  of  our  history  so  familiar  to  all  readers,  Mr.  Motley 
has  the  audacity  to  tell  the  European  world  that  all  jtarties 
acquiesced  in  his  imaginary  im[)crial  Government  until  Mr. 
Calhoun's  factious  dialectics  began  to  disturb  the  peace  in 
his  op[)()sition  to  the  tarift'rol)beries  of  the  Northern  SUitos. 

The  veracity  of  Mr.  Motley  seems  to  be  l>orrowed  from 
the  Italian  school  of  politicians,  with  which  his  historical 


12 

studies  have  made  liiTii  familiar.  His  roasoniuGf  comes 
from  a  less  ingcniou-s  (juartor.  lie  builds  a  wliole  theory 
of  government  on  three  words  of  a  preamble — tlie  words: 
"We  the  people."  The  Indian  philosopher's  device  of 
setting  the  world  on  an  elephant's  baek  is  a  much  more 
saijaeious  project.  The  preamble  is  a  mere  straw  for 
drowning  politicians  to  catch  at.  It  is  a  captious  o])jection 
answered  in  the  Virginia  Convention  by  Madison  and  Lee. 
Their  answer  is  conclusive.  The  history  of  the  i»reainble 
is  still  more  conclusive.  It  proves,  in  a  very  jtointed  man- 
ner, the  danger,  in  State  aft'airs,  of  indulging  in  vague, 
empty,  rhetorical  tiourishes,  instead  of  adhering  closely  to 
the  sober  language  of  trutli.  The  history  of  the  preamble 
is  this:  The  general  Convention  of  the  States  met  on  the 
14th  of  May,  17«7.  On  the  6th  of  August,  after  three 
months  of  deliberation,  the  conmiittee  appointed  for  the 
purpose  reported  a  Constitution.  The  preamble  reported 
was  as  follows:  "We  the  [leople  of  Xew  Hampshire,  Mas- 
sachusetts, Rhode  Island  and  Providence  plantations,  Con- 
necticut, New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Delaware, 
Maryland,  Virginia,  North  Carolina,  South  Carolina  and 
(leorgia,  do  ordain,  declare  and  establish  the  following 
Constitution  for  the  government  of  ourselves  and  our  pos- 
terity." On  the  7th  of  August,  the  (piestion  was  put  in 
the  Convention,  on  the  preamble  as  reporteil,  and  it  was 
adopted  unanimously.  No  suggestion  of  cliangc  in  its  lan- 
guage was  ever  made  th  the  Conrcnliov,  then  or  subscMpiently. 
The  Constitution  was  fully  discussed,  various  alterations 
were  made  in  its  details  and  some  amendments  offered.  It 
was  referred,  on  the  8th  of  September,  to  a  conmiittee  of 
five,  appointed  to  revise  the  sti/lc  and  arrange  the  articles 
agreed  to  by  the  House.  The  conmiittee  on  style  reported 
the  Constitution  as  revised,  polislied  and  arranged,  on  the 
12th  of  Seiitember.  On  the  17th,  the  Constitution  was 
engrossed  and  signed.  In  the  Constitution,  as  polished  by 
the  committee,  the  preamble  was  clianged.  It  was  thought 
that  the  long,  chimsy  enumeration  of  States  was  not  cu- 
phoneous.     The  committee,  of  their  own  motion,  made  the 


13 

preamble  what  it  now  is — "We,  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  establish 
justice,  insure  domestic  tranquility,"  etc.  They  contrived 
a  fine  introductory  flourish,  very  ornimiental,  as  they 
thought,  to  the  instrument,  and  very  useful  certainly  to 
gentlemep,  like  Mr.  Motley,  seeking  advancement  by  lite^- 
rary  services  and  willing  to  turn  a  rhetorical  phrase  into  an 
argument.  !Not  a  word  was  said  on  the  subject  of  the 
alteration.  What  Mr.  Motley  regards  as  a  suflieient 
foundation  for  a  theory  of  government  was  received  by 
the  Convention  as  a  mere  change  in  the  diction  of  their 
preamble,  too  unimportant  for  particular  attention  or  re- 
mark. They  little  imagined  that  it  would  be  used  for  the 
purpose  of  turning  their  confederate  republic  into  the  con- 
solidated government  which  they  denounced  as  "unremit- 
ted despotism." 

Mr.  Motley  admits  that,  "had  the  Union  established  in 
1788  been  a  confederacy  of  States,  it  might  l)e  argued  that 
the  States  which  peaceably  acceded  might  peaceably,  at 
their  pleasure,  secede  from  the  Union."  The  admission  is 
fatal  to  his  argument.  It  is  as  certain  as  any  fact  in  history 
that  the  Union  was  meant  by  all  parties  to  be  a  confed- 
eracy, and  that  each  State  peaceably  acceded  to  it.  It  has 
been  shown  from  the  records  that  every  leading  advocate 
of  the  constitution  declared  it  to  be  a  confederacy  of 
States.  Ample  amendments,  eleven  in  number,  were  ad- 
mitted to  allay  the  fears  and  remove  the  doubts  of  all  oppo- 
nents. There  is  in  the  form  of  Government  the  strongest 
internal  evidence  that  it  is  a  confederacy  —  the  structure 
of  the  Senate  elected  by  the  States  as  States;  the  appor- 
tionment of  direct  taxes  among  the  States  as  States  ;  the 
election  of  President  by  States  in  Congress  when  the  elec- 
tion has  failed  before  the  people.  But,  independent  of  all 
this,  there  is  one  fact  so  broad,  plain  and  irresistilde  as  to 
set  all  dispute  at  defiance.  Tlie  Federal  Government  was 
inaugurated  in  March,  1780.  The  States  of  North  Caro- 
lina and  Rbode  Island  were  not  members  of  it.  They  had 
not   acceded    to   it.     They   were    independent    sovereign 


14 

States,  so  declared  to  be  by  tbe  treaty  of  peace  \vitli 
F^iiij^laiid,  not  unitedly,  but  severally.  Tliey  remained  in 
this  indc'iK'ndent  position,  out  of  the  Union,  until  IT'JO. 
"What  was  the  little  State  of  Rhode  Island  in  the  interval 
between  March.  ITS!),  and  May,  ITHO,  an  interval  of  more 
tjian  a  year?  Tlu-  I'nitcd  States  (iovornmcTit  claimed  no 
authority  over  lu-r.  The  confederation  of  the  Rcvolinion 
was  dead.  It  had  been  ordained  and  established  to  be  per- 
petual, and  it  lasted  twelve  years.  For  fifteen  months 
Rhode  Island  stood  alone,  an  independent  State.  In  May, 
1790,  she  peaceably/  arcalnl  to  the  new  F'ederal  (tovernment. 
Can  Mr.  Motley  devise  a  fact  more  conclusive  to  prove  that 
Rhode  Island  "peaceably  acceded"  to  the  Union?  And 
has  he  not  admitted  that  a  State  which  peaceably  accedes 
to  the  Union  may  peaceably,  at  })lcasnrc,  secede  from  it  ? 
Did  he  remember  anythinfj  of  Rhode  Island  and  North 
Carolina  when  be  ventured  to  assert  that  no  State  ac- 
ceded to  the  P\'(leral  (lovernment;  that  the  Constitution 
was  not  ratified  by  the  States  ;  that  it  was  imposed  on 
them  l)y  the  i)eople  of  the  wliole  land  in  tlu-ir  ai:;gregate 
capacity  ?  What  rejily  can  be  made  to  such  assertions  but 
that  they  arc  boldly  and  impudently  false. 

There  is  yet  another  fact  that  Mr.  Motley  must  accept. 
It  is  the  iiromincnt,  insuperable  fact  that  the  States  are 
existing,  organized  Governments;  each  one,  as  Hamilton 
says,  Bujtreme  in  the  exercise  of  its  legitimate  powers. 
Each  State  has  its  executive,  judieial.  and  legislative 
departments,  its  unlimited  ]tower  of  direet  taxation,  its 
militia  armed,  equijijted  and  oliiecred,  of  whieb  the  CJov- 
enioi'  of  the  State  is  the  C(imin:nitlei'-in-('liiej'.  This  is  a 
stubborn  fact  that  must  be  accepted.  To  tell  his  readers, 
as  Mr.  Motley  ventures  to  do.  that  tin  State  so  constituted 
is  a  mere  countv,  is  to  mock  tlu'ir  un(lei-standin<;s.  The 
States  ar(;  States,  people,  nations,  having  supreme  power 
over  their  civil  and  domestic  i-elations,  and  as  indcjiendent, 
one  of  the  other,  within  that  limit,  as  they  are  of  England 
and  France.  They  are  armed  powers,  and  will  protect  the 
liberties  of  the  States.     To  establish  a  Government  such 


15 

as  Mr.  Motley  assumes  the  Federal  Governiucnt  to  be,  it 
would  become  necessary  to  wipe  out  from  American  geog- 
raphy the  boundaries  of  States,  and  to  arrange  the  country 
under  a  new  form.  The  plan  was  suggested  in  1787,  but  it 
had  no  advocates.  It  found  favor  nowhere  with  any  party 
in  the  convention. 

Mr.  Motley  labors  with  more  than  common  earnestness 
to  persuade  the  pe()i)le  of  England  that  there  is  some  essen- 
tial difterence  between  the  present  action  of  the  Southern 
States  and  that  of  the  American  colonies  in  the  Revolu- 
tionary war.  There  is  a  ditiercncc  certainly.  In  1775,  the 
colonies  were  British  possessions.  The  people  of  the  colo- 
nies were  subjects  of  the  British  crown.  Tlie  action  of 
America  was  a  rebellion.  The  American  people  were  rebels. 
But  the  Southern  States  have  never  been  possessions  of  the 
North.  The  Southern  people  are  not  subjects  of  New  Eng- 
land and  her  partners.  The  withdrawing  of  the  South  from 
the  Union  is  not  a  rebellion.  The  people  of  the  Southern 
States  are  not  rebels.  If  Mr.  Motley  will  not  accept  this 
distinction,  and  will  insist  that  we  are  subjects  and  rebels, 
then  the  only  difference  between  the  case  of  1775  and  that 
of  1861,  is  the  old  difference  which  ^Esop  illustrates  in  the 
fable  of  the  lawyer,  the  countryman  and  the  gored  ox — 
it  was  John's  Bull  formerly,  and  now  it  is  brother  Jona- 
than's. 

Mr.  Motley  professes  to  find  a  parallel  between  the 
United  Kingdoms  of  Scotland  and  England  and  the  United 
States  of  America.  Admirable  logician  !  There  is  no 
objection  to  the  comparison,  except  that  the  objects  com- 
pared are  alike  in  nothing.  To  make  them  similar,  each 
kingdom  must  be  in  full  possession  of  its  own  Government, 
its  king,  lords  and  commons.  Each  must  be  indei>endent 
of  the  other,  except  in  relation  to  certain  s]»ecified  objects. 
They  must  be  united  in  a  common  Government,  sitting 
neither  in  London  nor  Edinburgh,  and  exercising  limited, 
delegated  powers  only,  in  some  common  place.  Then, 
suppose  that  these  delegated  powers  were  exceeded  ;  that 
one  party  to   the  partnership  was  seeking  to  injure  the 


16 

other;  that  tlio  imrty  oppressed  determined  to  withdraw 
from  tlie  compact,  tlion,  ami  then  only,  we  shall  have  a  con- 
dition of  thinijs  in  Great  Britain  resemblinc:  that  which 
exists  in  America.  But,  again,  although  the  position  of 
the  two  countries  is  dissimilar,  still  the  union  hetween 
JIngland  and  Scotland  is  ha.sed  on  certain  fundamental 
articles  of  a  solemn  compact.  Suppose  these  articles  vio- 
lated ;  suppose  that  Eni^land  should  attempt  to  impose  on 
Scotland  a  religion  diffcront  from  her  form  of  faith,  or  that 
the  English  Parliament  should  refuse  to  admit  to  their 
Beats  the  lords  and  commoners  sent  up  from  Scotland,  and 
so  dcpi'ivc  the  sister  kingdom  of  her  whole  rej>resentation, 
would  the  land  of  "  William  the  Lion  and  Kohcrt  Bru<'e," 
submit  to  the  outrage  ?  Would  it  not  justify  an  armed  re- 
sistance on  the  part  of  the  Mg<rricvcd  power?  Would  such 
armed  resistance  he  a  suthcieiit  reason,  "  before  the  trib- 
unal of  the  civilized  world,"  for  England  to  declare  a  war 
of  subjugation  against  Scotland,  to  march  armies  into  her 
borders,  and  perpetrate  cyery  atrocity  of  arson,  murder 
and  rajie,  that  the  most  lawless  banditti  are  capable  of  com- 
mitting? 

Mr.  Motley  says,  the  term  sovereifiniij  is  of  feudal  origin, 
and  not  applical)le  to  our  American  institutions.  There  is 
sovereignty  only  where  there  are  kings  and  princes,  as  in 
the  old  feudal  monarchies  of  Scotland  and  England.  It  is 
a  pity  Mr.  Motley  would  not  carry  his  philology  a  little 
farther.  The  terms  loyalty,  allegiance,  reltel,  ivbellion,  so 
common  in  the  mouths  of  the  Lincoln  iaction,  ai'c  equalh' 
of  feu<lal  origin  and  e(pndly  inapplicable  to  our  American 
institutions.  What  does  Mr.  Motley  mean  when  he  talks 
of  loyalty  as  due  from  a  citizen  of  ^'irginia  to  Abraham 
Lincoln?  What  does  he  mean  by  "rebellion  "  apj>lied  to 
independent  States?  (-an  Virginia  rebel  against  Massa- 
chusetts? The  Southern  people  are  rel)els  against  whom? 
The  term  "rebel"  is  intelligible  in  the  vocabulary  of  Lord 
North  or  bis  master,  but  what  meaning  has  it  from  the  lips 
of  Mr.  Seward  cr  Mr.  Lincoln  ?  Is  it  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment that  claims  alicLriance  and  loyalty,  and  against  whom 


17 

the  States  are  said  to  rebel  ?  What  is  the  Federal  Govern- 
ment? It  is  the  creature  of  the  States.  It  lives  by  suffer- 
ance only.  If  the  States  merely  kept  back  their  Senators 
from  "Washington,  the  Government  would  cease  to  exist. 
The  Federal  authorities  are  the  grantees  of  power,  not  the 
grantors:  the  employed,  not  the  employers;  the  political 
agents,  not  the  principals.  And  this  grantee,  this  agent, 
claims  loyalty  from  its  masters.  Abraham  Lincoln  de- 
mands allegiance  from  Georgia  and  Texas.  Allegiance, 
loyalty,  are  for  kings  ;  rebellion,  rebel,  mark  the  relations 
of  subjects.  To  apply  them  as  the  Northern  people  are 
applying  must  excite  the  world's  laughter  only. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that  a  new  term,  the  term  secession, 
has  been  used  so  freely.  It  grew  out  of  the  necessity  for  a 
new  word  to  designate  a  new  thing.  Mr.  Motley  may  in- 
sist, if  he  pleases,  on  calling  the  secession  of  a  State  from 
the  Union  rebellion,  and  the  citizens  of  the  seceding  State 
rebels.  He  may  go  on  to  claim  their  loyalty  and  allegiance 
if  he  will.  But  it  is  evident]}-  applying  terms  of  one  form 
of  society  to  another  form  in  which  they  have  no  significa- 
tion. There  is  no  resemblance  between  a  State  regularly 
organized  declaring  its  independence  against  former  part- 
ners, and  a  disorderly  crowd  of  revolters  asserting  freedom 
against  their  rulers;  between  the  citizens  of  a  State  obey- 
ing the  State's  decrees,  and  a  band  of  insurgents  acting  on 
their  own  authority.  To  insist  on  confounding  things  so 
dissimilar  by  applying  to  them  the  same  words  and  forms 
of  language  is  simply  ridiculous. 

But  if  Mr.  Motley  will  confound  them,  if  he  will  call  the 
action  of  the  Southern  States  rebellion,  we  are  willing  to 
indulge  him.  Let  it  be  rebellion.  ^^  No  man,"  he  says,  "o/" 
Avglo-Saxon  blood  will  dispute  (he  right  of  a  people  or  of  any  por- 
tion of  a  people  to  rise  against  oppression,  and  take  up  arms 
to  vindicate  the  sacred  principles  of  liberty."  Least  of  all,  can 
any  man  of  America  dispute  the  right  of  American  citizens 
in  its  largest  possible  latitude.  The  right  of  rebellion 
against  Government  made  the  Colonies  independent  States 
in  1783.  It  has  been  proclaimed  ever  since  in  every  possi- 
2 


18 

ble  sliapc  as  a  sacred  right  never  to  ho  ahandonod.  It  was 
clearly  ivssertcd  in  many  of  the  State  ConventionH  on  the 
ratification  of  the  Constitution.  In  the  New  York  Con- 
vention, it  waa  resolved  nnanini<tusly,  tliat  (hi  puwcrs  of 
GiU'crnmeiit  may  be  rcassumal  hj/  (he  people  whenever  i(  shall 
become  necessary  (o  (heir  happiness.  The  declarati(^n  is  re- 
peated in  the  same  words  in  the  ratification  of  the  Consti- 
tution by  Rhode  Island.  The  right  to  rea^sume,  let  it  he 
observed,  is  claimed,  not  in  cases  of  oppression  only,  but 
whenever  in  the  judgment  of  the  people,  the  resujuption 
of  the  powers  delegated  to  government  shall  be  deemed 
necessary  (o  (he  happi7iess  of  (he  people.  In  the  exercise  of 
this  broad,  undisputed  right  of  rebellion,  if  Mr.  Motley 
will  call  it  rebellion,  which  belongs  to  every  man  of  Anglo- 
Saxon  descent;  in  the  exercise  of  that  especial  right  which 
appertains  to  every  American  by  universal  consent,  and  by 
the  formal  assertit)n,  in  the  broadest  form,  of  State  Con- 
ventions when  adopting  the  Constitution,  we,  the  Southern 
States  and  people  have  abandoned  forever  a  partnership 
that  has  grown  odious  and  insupportable.  AVe  judge  this 
proceeding  to  be  necessaiy  (o  our  happiness^  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  our  interests  and  liberties,  and  we  deny  that,  in  so 
acting,  we  give  any  just  cause  of  offence,  far  less  of  war, 
to  any  other  State  or  people. 

Mr.  Motley's  letter  is  a  medley  of  the  boldest  assertion 
and  the  feeblest  rea«oning.  We  have  given  examples  of 
both,  and  a<ld  one  or  two  more  of  the  last.  The  Latin 
motto,  c  pluriliiLs  unujn,  performs  as  distinguished  a  part 
in  his  logical  exploits  as  the  vernacular,  "We,  the  people." 
lie  gives  to  the  motto  all  the  weight  of  a  .syllogism,  lie 
infers  from  it  nothing  less  than  that  the  Tnitcd  States  Cov- 
cmment  is  a  consolidated  tommonwcaith.  The  motto 
might  very  properly  be  adoi)ted  by  a  great  commercial 
house  of  twenty  partners,  would  we  therefore  be  at  liberty 
to  conclude  that  the  twenty  partners  were  consolidated 
into  a  sort  of  man  mountain  like  (JuUiver  in  LiHii)ut,  and 
that  Mr.  IJrown  and  Mr.  Smith  and  Mr.  Jones  had  lost 
their  individual  existence  ?     It  is  the  "  plures,"  the  part- 


19 

ners,  the  States,  that  have  a  substantial  existence;  the 
"  Unum"  the  Compan^^,  the  Union,  are  abstractions  do- 
pendent  for  daily  existence  on  the  parties  who  form  them. 

The  phrase  "e  pluribus  nnum"  has  been  criticised  as 
bad  Latin.  I  am  no  judge.  But  if  it  be,  it  is  only  the 
better  fitted  for  the  purposes  to  which  Mr.  Motley  applies 
it.  "What  can  be  more  thoroughly  suited  to  absurdities  in 
reasoning  than  solicisms  in  language? 

Mr.  Motley  has  still  another  reason,  equally  significant, 
for  believing  the  United  States  to  he  a  consolidated  gov- 
ernment. It  is  that  the  "Great  Republic"  is  known  every 
where,  the  States  no  where.  What  man  in  the  civilized 
world,  he  asks,  has  not  heard  of  the  United  States;  what 
man  in  England  can  tell  the  name's  of  the  individual 
States?  This  is  very  much  such  reasoning  as  a  Hindoo 
may  have  used  ten  years  ago  to  prove  that  the  East  India 
company  was  the  ruling  power  in  England.  Who,  he 
might  have  said  to  his  countrymen,  ever  heard,  in  all  the 
kingdoms  of  India,  of  John  Bull;  who  feels  his  authority; 
who  knows  anything  about  him  ?  It  is  not  John  Bull,  it  is 
John  Company  of  whom  we  hear.  John  Company  raises 
armies  and  conquers  empires  and  disburses  millions  of 
gold.  John  Company  is  England.  The  Federal  Govern- 
ment is  our  political  agency  for  foreign  nations.  Of  course 
they  know  the  agent  only,  except  on  particular  occasions. 
But  these  occasions  sometimes  arise.  When  England 
made  demands  on  the  United  States  in  relation  to  certain 
regulations  of  foreign  colored  seamen  in  the  port^i  of 
South  Carolina,  what  was  the  reply?  The  reply  was  that 
it  was  a  subject  over  which  the  State  was  supreme  and  the 
general  Government  without  authority.  \Xi=^  hands  were 
tied. 

Mr.  Motley  quotes  Burke  as  saying  that  "a  State  ought 
not  to  be  considered  as  nothing  better  than  a  partnership 
agreement  in  a  trade  of  pepper  and  coffee,  calico  or  tobac- 
co, to  be  taken  up  for  a  little  temporary  ititerest  and  to  be 
dissolved  by  the  fancy  of  the  parties."  Certainly  the  State 
should  "be  looked  upon  with  other  reverence,"   but  the 


20 

State  is  a  partiic'rshi|t  noverlliolcss.  P]sj)ccially  i«  a 
Union  of  States  sucli  a  partnorsliip.  It  begins  in  mutual 
advantage,  is  continued  for  mutual  advantage,  and  must 
ceatic  wlien  the  mutual  advantage  ceases.  It  is  the  law  of 
States,  of  humanity,  from  which  tliere  is  no  escape.  It  is 
idle  to  enact  laws  to  be  in  force  forever;  if  not  repealed  by 
other  laws,  time  will  repeal  them.  They  become  obsolete, 
a  dead  letter  on  the  statute  book.  It  is  vain  for  Conven- 
tions to  ordain  a  Constitution  for  endless  jiosterities.  Pos- 
terity will  inevitably  undertake  to  judge  of  its  own  interests 
for  itself.  In  such  dissolutions  of  partnership  in  States 
there  will  be  inconvenience  and  damage  to  the  parties. 
But  that  consideration  never  arrests  the  progress  of  events. 
Least  of  all  is  it  ever  permitted  to  one  of  the  parties  to 
plead  his  api>rehensions  of  future  loss  or  disaster  as  a  reason 
with  his  retiring  partners  for  not  seeking  their  fortunes  in 
their  own  way.  The  rule  of  each  is  his  own  welfare;  the 
guide  of  each  is  his  own  judgment. 

Mr.  Motley  becomes  lugubrious  at  the  close  of  his  letter. 
He  mourns  over  the  loss  by  the  "  rebellion  "  of  "immense 
territories "    to  the  Union.     By  the    Union,  he  means  the 
Northern  States — by  the  immense  territories,  the  Southern 
country.     It  ought  to  console  him  to  know  that  the  terri- 
tory remains  in  the  possession  of  those  to  whom  it  right- 
fully belongs,     lie  laments  the  damage  to  the  North  iVom 
beiu^   deprived    ol"   the    natural    bouiulary    ot    the    whole 
Houtheru  maritime  frontier.     It  will  be  very  inconvenient. 
Btit   even    the    French    empire    has    been  unable  to  keep 
,1  ulnral  or  advantageous  bt)undarie8  at  the  expense  of  its 
u^,-,  <^hbors.     lie  grieves  at  the  sliort  memory  of  the  South- 
ern I  ■*cople.     '*  It  was  only  when   the  eciis  of  disuuion  faded 
awaij  h'i  ihc  past,"  he  says,  "  that  the  allegiance  to  the  Union 
in  certa.'"  regions  of  the  country  seemed  rapidly  to  dimin- 
ish."    It  is  \\Q.Y<^  to  say  where  the  evils  of  disunion  are  to 
be  found  in  <>ur  past  history.     The  evils  of  the  Union  are 
obvious  enoiigh.    They  took  the  shape  of  bounties,  monop- 
oliea  and  systematic  detraction.    Mr.  Motley  confesses  that 
the   tarifl'  systoni  was  an  oppression    on  the  South,     lie 


21 

admits  that  iu  the  tariff  controversy  of  1831,  which  almost 
ended  in  secession,  the  South  were  right  and  the  North 
wrong.  Has  the  wrong  ever  ceased  ?  Have  the  Northern 
States  ever  forhorne  for  a  moment  to  make  the  Southern 
people  their  dependents,  by  law,  for  every  article  of  manu- 
factured goods?  We  have  escaped  the  burdens  of  the  Mor- 
rill tariff  only  by  escaping  from  the  Union.  Is  this  system 
of  legal  sectional  plunder  the  single  wrong  or  evil  inflicted 
on  the  South  by  her  Northern  brethren,  and  i)atiently 
borne  for  many  years  from  sincere  attachment  to  the 
Union  ?  Have  not  Northern  politicians,  and  divines,  and 
journalists,  and  authors  of  every  description,  reviled  the 
character  of  the  Southern  people  over  all  Europe,  system- 
atically, for  many  years?  So  successfully  had  they  per- 
suaded themselves,  by  their  libels,  to  their  great  satisfaction 
and  comfort,  that  the  people  of  the  South  were  in  all  re- 
spects utterly  contemptible,  that  they  were  amazed,  in  the 
sharp  refutation  of  their  opinion,  on  the  field  of  Manassas, 
to  find  they  had  men  to  fight  against  more  than  equal  to 
themselves.  This  was  Governor  Sprague's  confession  to 
the  people  of  Rhode  Island.  They  went  to  war  because 
they  though  the  conquest  of  the  South  would  be  an  easy 
task.  They  ventured  because  they  believed  their  oppo- 
nents effeminate  boasters  and  cowards.  The  work  would 
be  slight  and  the  profit  immense.  They  are  grieved  to  find 
that  they  were  mistaken  in  the  calculation.  The  blood 
they  have  shed  goes  for  nothing.  It  was  not  the  fading 
away  of  imaginary  evils^  belonging  to  an  apochryphal  period 
of  disunion,  that  has  destroyed  the  unity  of  the  Govern- 
ment and  torn  the  Republic  to  pieces.  It  has  been  the 
insolence,  arrogance,  presumption  and  impudent  intermed- 
dling of  the  Northern  people  with  matters  in  which  they 
had  no  earthly  concern.  They  had  grown  prosperous 
beyond  their  wildest  hopes  on  the  profits  produced  to  them 
from  Southern  resources.  They  had  waxed  fatter  tlian 
their  exhibition  pigs  or  prize  oxen,  and  had  been  playing 
those  unseemly  tricks  in  the  face  of  Heaven,  which  always 
go  before  a  nation's  downfall.     They  are  now  making  war 


22 

on  the  Ronthoni  j>(''»|>lc  iindor  jiitiful  pulttorfticros  and  false 
pretoiiccK.  Undor  tlic  mask  of  patriotism  tliey  arc  Becking 
purely  selfisli  ends,  by  means  of  atrocities  more  infamous 
than  were  ever  witnessed  hefore  among  civilized  nations. 
They  are  rapidly  arriving  at  the  hitter  conviction  that  they 
have  lost  wantonly,  wickedly,  stupidly,  incalcnlahle  advan- 
tages that  no  <'raft,  strength,  or  wisdom  can  ever  regain. 
The  suft'cring  will  fall  on  the  laboring  masses.  Mr.  Motley, 
and  others  like  Mr.  Motley — men  who  will  live  and  fatten 
on  the  taxes  wrung  from  the  distresses  of  the  people — find 
no  evils  to  deplore  in  the  war  they  are  waging  on  the 
Southern  pef>i»le.  The  chiefs  are  unprincipled,  unscrupu- 
lous adventurers.  Tliey  will  divide  ani(»ng  themselves 
400,000,000  of  dollars,  in  every  jiossihle  form  c»f  plunder, 
and  the  jieople  will  be  deprived  of  their  freedom  and 
ground  into  dust.  The  whole  story  will  supply  an  instruc- 
tive c<»mmentary  on  written  Constitutions  and  on  parch- 
ment guarantees  of  personal  liberty  and  the  rights  of 
[trojierty.  The  American  people  have  relied  on  them  ae 
bands  of  iron  to  bind  designing  and  ambitious  denuigogues; 
they  have  proven  to  be  wisjts  of  straw  and  ropes  of  sand. 
One  word  remains  to  be  said  of  Mr.  Motley,  the  historian 
who  relates  the  triumphant  achievements  of  the  Dutch 
people  in  asserting  and  establishing  their  liberties.  Ilis 
wli(de'  work  of  three  volumes  is  a  panygcric  on  the  vindi- 
cators of  tlii'ir  country's  freedom,  ami  a  denunciation  of 
hatred  and  scorn  on  the  ojtpressors  of  the  Xctherlands. 
hut  riiiliji  was  at  least  a  king  by  every  law  and  principle 
of  the  age.  He  was  doing  a  great  duty  according  to  his 
narrow  Judgment  and  bigoted  conscience.  Tie  was  gov- 
erned by  no  mean  aims  of  emolument  or  office.  lie  was 
not  false  to  his  principles  to  secure  a  petty  appointment. 
There  was  no  base  truckling  to  vulgar  demagogue  power 
in  his  character  or  proceedings.  Tyrant  as  he  was,  he  was 
a  tyrant  in  conformity  with  the  received  and  settled  limits 
of  imperial  rule.  He  was  a  bad  and  cruel  master,  but  he 
was  master  by  universal  consent.  And  what  is  the  tyrant 
of  our  day — the  object  of  Mr.  Motley's  praise  and  support? 


23 

A  coarsg  demagogue,  thrust  into  power  by  party  trickery, 
the  patron  and  representative  of  office  hunters  of  tlie  baser 
sort,  the  deliberate  viohitor  of  every  principle  of  the  Gov- 
ernment which  he  has  sworn  to  administer  faithfully,  and 
which  Mr.  Motley  professes  to  admire ;  the  man  who  has 
carried  lire  and  sword,  and  arson  and  murder,  and  rape  into 
the  peaceful  homes  of  Virginia;  a  man  more  base,  more 
cruel,  more  treacherous,  more  false  than  Philip  or  his  in- 
struments; a  vulgar  despot  who  is  feeling  his  way  to  every 
atrocity  that  the  worst  tools  of  the  Spanish  tyrant  ever  per- 
petrated, and  who  is  surrounded  and  urged  on  by  advisers 
and  abettors  worse  than  Alva  or  Parma,  or  the  inquisition 
at  Madrid — by  Seward  and  Blair  and  Greeley,  and  the 
clergy  of  the  North,  who  preach  robbery  and  assassination 
as  Christian  duties.  These  are  the  men  who  are  organizing 
a  conspiracy  of  rape  and  robbery  against  the  American 
Netherlands,  and  whom  Mr.  Motley  has  prostituted  his  pen 
to  support.  Assuredly,  he  will  receive  his  reward.  A  part 
he  has  already  secured  in  a  foreign  appointment — the  re- 
mainder, the  scorn  and  rebuke  of  all  honorable  men,  he 
will  as  certainly  receive.  Can  any  man  doubt  what  course 
Mr.  Motley  would  have  taken  had  he  lived  in  the  days  of 
Egmont  and  Horn  ?  Would  he  have  gone  to  the  block 
with  the  victims  of  Spanish  cruelty  ?  would  he  have  taken 
part  with  the  poverty  and  suftering  of  William  the  Silent, 
who  had  nothing  of  importance  to  give  ?  or  would  his  pen 
have  been  the  purchased  slave  of  those  who  could  give 
office  and  wealth,  dukedoms  and  principalities?  Who  will 
not  understand  at  once  tlic  truthfulness  of  Mr.  Motley's 
pretended  enthusiasm  for  Dutch  liberty,  and  his  hatred  for 
Spanish  cruelty  and  tyranny,  when  he  denounces  the  South 
for  imitating  Dutcli  example,  and  sustains  and  praises  a 
horde  of  brutal  despots  worse  than  Philip  or  Alva  ? 


